| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 317/10 |
| Determination date | 08 July 2010 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | M Zetko ; S Allen |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kumar v Waikato Steel Fabricators Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Application to raise grievance out of time – Applicant recently arrived in New Zealand – Applicant claimed although had adequate understanding of written and spoken English had no knowledge of New Zealand’s employment relations law – Applicant accepted employment agreement (“EA”) properly set out rights but claimed non-existent knowledge of employment law meant unable to understand contractual terms – Claimed respondent knew or ought to have known these circumstances and provided sufficient information – Respondent argued applicant had capacity to understand EA – Found Authority and Employment Tribunal have repeatedly rejected submission that inadequate understanding of employment rights could amount to exceptional circumstances – Authority distinguished Sharma decision – Found unlike applicant’s EA, EA in Sharma did not contain requisite explanation concerning resolution of employment relationship problems – Found no exceptional circumstances existed – Application to raise grievance out of time declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s114;ERA s115;ERA s115(c) |
| Cases Cited | Muggeridge v Miden Construction Co Ltd [1992] 1 ERNZ 232;Sharma v Pegasus Stations Ltd, unreported, K Anderson, 25 Feb 2003, AA 46/03;Thomson v Thomson [1992] 2 ERNZ 84 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 317_10.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |